EA has yet to take irreversible action based on these ideas, but the philosophy is gaining traction and therefore deserves an equal amount of criticism. There have been millions donated to the cause of improving the long-term future: at the time of writing the Long-Term Future Fund has received just under $4.5 million USD in total, and the Open Philanthropy Project has dedicated a focus area to this cause in the form of ārisks from advanced artificial intelligence.ā While many millions more are still funneled through GiveWell, The Life You Can Save, and Animal Charity Evaluators
****
For what itās worth, should the EA community abandon longtermism, I think many of its current priorities would remain unchanged; long-term causes do not yet dominate its portfolio.
I appreciate this tangential to the main point of the post, but these asides strike me as (unintentionally) likely to leave the reader with a common-but-inaccurate impression, and I think itās worth correcting this impression as it arises in the name of general integrity and transparency.
Specifically, I think a reader of the above without further context would assume that longtermism is very new (say <2 years old, perhaps the age of the 2019 working paper), is basically just getting off the ground in EA, and it receives a small-but-significant amount of funding/ātime to date but has the potential to absorb much more.
The actual state of the world as I understand it is as follows:
Open Philanthropy, as of Jan 2018, plan to donate more than half of their money to longtermist areas. In particular, I note that their grants to date in this area completely swamp the $4.5m given through the Long-Term Future Fund.
The EA Survey suggests that āLong Term Futureā causes, broadly defined, are the top priority of 41% of the survey population.
80000 hours has a (commendably explicit) longtermist outlook and prioritises career paths largely on this basis.
As of May 2018, CEAās Current Thinking page stated they believed āthe most effective opportunities to do good are aimed at helping the long-term futureā. Note this page has a disclaimer saying this no longer reflects their current views; I do not know whether this section was part of what they no longer think. Still, the fact it was true at time of writing is relevant for assessing the age of this framework within the movement.
The overall picture this paints is of longtermism as the current dominant framework of the movement, at least within the core. I think it has been for at least three years. Questions of whether long-term causes dominate the portfolio, far from being settled, are very sensitive to whether we are counting only-money or money + time, and how broadly we define the EA community. The narrower the definition of āEAā and the more you look at non-financial input, the more long-term causes dominate.
I agree that longtermism is core part of the movement, and probably commands a larger share of adherents than I imply. However, Iām not sure to what extent strong longtermism is supported. My sense is that while most people agree with the general thrust of the philosophy, many would be uncomfortable with āignoring the effectsā of the near term, and remain focused on near-term problems. I didnāt want to claim that a majority of EAs supported longtermism broadly-defined, but then only criticize a subset of those views.
I hadnāt seen the results of the EA Surveyāfascinating.
I agree with AGBās comment, but I would also like to add that strong longtermism seems like a moral perspective with much less ānaturalā appeal, and thus much less ultimate growth potential, than neartermist EA causes such as global poverty reduction or even animal welfare.
For example, Iām a Program Officer in the longtermist part of Open Philanthropy, but >80% of my grantmaking dollars go to people who are not longtermists (who are nevertheless doing work I think is helpful for certain longtermist goals). Why? Because there are almost no longtermists anywhere in the world, and even fewer who happen to have the skills and interests that make them a fit for my particular grantmaking remit. Meanwhile, Open Philanthropy makes far more grants in neartermist causes (though this might change in the future), in part because there are tons of people who are excited about doing cost-effective things to help humans and animals who are alive and visibly suffering today, and not so many people who are excited about trying to help hypothetical people living millions of years in the future.
Of course to some degree this is because longtermism is fairly new, though I would date it at least as far back as Bostromās āAstronomical Wasteā paper from 2003.
I would also like to note that many people I speak to who identify (like me) as āprimarily longtermistā have sympathy (like me) for something like āworldview diversification,ā given the deep uncertainties involved in the quest to help others as much as possible. So e.g. while I spend most of my own time on longtermism-motivated efforts, I also help out with other EA causes in various ways (e.g. this giant project on animal sentience), and I link to or talk positively about GiveWell top charities a lot, and I mostly avoid eating non-AWA meat, and so onā¦ rather than treating these non-longtermist priorities as a rounding error. Of course some longtermists take a different approach than I do, but Iām hardly alone in my approach.
I appreciate this tangential to the main point of the post, but these asides strike me as (unintentionally) likely to leave the reader with a common-but-inaccurate impression, and I think itās worth correcting this impression as it arises in the name of general integrity and transparency.
Specifically, I think a reader of the above without further context would assume that longtermism is very new (say <2 years old, perhaps the age of the 2019 working paper), is basically just getting off the ground in EA, and it receives a small-but-significant amount of funding/ātime to date but has the potential to absorb much more.
The actual state of the world as I understand it is as follows:
Open Philanthropy, as of Jan 2018, plan to donate more than half of their money to longtermist areas. In particular, I note that their grants to date in this area completely swamp the $4.5m given through the Long-Term Future Fund.
The EA Survey suggests that āLong Term Futureā causes, broadly defined, are the top priority of 41% of the survey population.
80000 hours has a (commendably explicit) longtermist outlook and prioritises career paths largely on this basis.
As of May 2018, CEAās Current Thinking page stated they believed āthe most effective opportunities to do good are aimed at helping the long-term futureā. Note this page has a disclaimer saying this no longer reflects their current views; I do not know whether this section was part of what they no longer think. Still, the fact it was true at time of writing is relevant for assessing the age of this framework within the movement.
The overall picture this paints is of longtermism as the current dominant framework of the movement, at least within the core. I think it has been for at least three years. Questions of whether long-term causes dominate the portfolio, far from being settled, are very sensitive to whether we are counting only-money or money + time, and how broadly we define the EA community. The narrower the definition of āEAā and the more you look at non-financial input, the more long-term causes dominate.
Thanks AGB, this is helpful.
I agree that longtermism is core part of the movement, and probably commands a larger share of adherents than I imply. However, Iām not sure to what extent strong longtermism is supported. My sense is that while most people agree with the general thrust of the philosophy, many would be uncomfortable with āignoring the effectsā of the near term, and remain focused on near-term problems. I didnāt want to claim that a majority of EAs supported longtermism broadly-defined, but then only criticize a subset of those views.
I hadnāt seen the results of the EA Surveyāfascinating.
I know Iām late to the discussion, butā¦
I agree with AGBās comment, but I would also like to add that strong longtermism seems like a moral perspective with much less ānaturalā appeal, and thus much less ultimate growth potential, than neartermist EA causes such as global poverty reduction or even animal welfare.
For example, Iām a Program Officer in the longtermist part of Open Philanthropy, but >80% of my grantmaking dollars go to people who are not longtermists (who are nevertheless doing work I think is helpful for certain longtermist goals). Why? Because there are almost no longtermists anywhere in the world, and even fewer who happen to have the skills and interests that make them a fit for my particular grantmaking remit. Meanwhile, Open Philanthropy makes far more grants in neartermist causes (though this might change in the future), in part because there are tons of people who are excited about doing cost-effective things to help humans and animals who are alive and visibly suffering today, and not so many people who are excited about trying to help hypothetical people living millions of years in the future.
Of course to some degree this is because longtermism is fairly new, though I would date it at least as far back as Bostromās āAstronomical Wasteā paper from 2003.
I would also like to note that many people I speak to who identify (like me) as āprimarily longtermistā have sympathy (like me) for something like āworldview diversification,ā given the deep uncertainties involved in the quest to help others as much as possible. So e.g. while I spend most of my own time on longtermism-motivated efforts, I also help out with other EA causes in various ways (e.g. this giant project on animal sentience), and I link to or talk positively about GiveWell top charities a lot, and I mostly avoid eating non-AWA meat, and so onā¦ rather than treating these non-longtermist priorities as a rounding error. Of course some longtermists take a different approach than I do, but Iām hardly alone in my approach.
Yikesā¦ now Iām even more worried ā¦ :|