Ah, your first point makes me realise that at times I mistook the purpose of this âeveryday longtermismâ idea/âproject as more similar to finding Task Ys than it really is. I now remember that you didnât really frame this as âWhat can even âregular peopleâ do, even if theyâre not in key positions or at key junctures?â (If that was the framing, I might be more inclined to emphasise donating effectively, as well as things like voting effectivelyânot just for politicians with good charactersâand meeting with politicians to advocate for effective policies.)
Instead, I think youâre talking about what anyone can do (including but not limited to very dedicated and talented people) in âeveryday situationsâ, perhaps alongside other, more effective actions.
I think at times I was aware of that, but times I forgot it. Thatâs probably just on me, rather than an issue with the clarity of this post or project. But I guess perhaps misinterpretations along those lines are a failure mode to look out for and make extra efforts to prevent?
---
As for concrete examples, off the top of my head, the key thing is just focusing more on donating more and more effectively. This could also include finding ways to earn or save more money. I think that those actions are accessible to large numbers of people, would remain useful at scale (though with diminishing returns, of course), and intersect with lots of everyday situations (e.g., lots of everyday situations could allow opportunities to save money, or to spend less time on X in order to spend more time working out where to donate).
To be somewhat concrete: In a scenario with 5 million longtermists, if we choose a somewhat typical teacher who wants to make the world better, I think theyâd do more good by focusing a bit more on donating more and more effectively than by focusing a bit more on trying to cause their students to see themselves as moral actors and think clearly. (This is partly based on me expecting that itâs really hard to have a big, lasting impact on those variables as a teacher, which in turn in is loosely informed by research I read and experiences I had as a teacher. Though I do expect one could have some impact on those variables, and I think for some people itâs worth spending some effort on that.)
That said, I think it makes sense to use other examples as well as donating more and more effectively. Especially now that I remember what the purpose of this project actually is. But I am a bit surprised that donating more and more effectively wasnât one of the examples in your list? Is there a reason for that?
---
I think itâs a bit like how informal EA discourse often touches on how to do everyday things efficiently (e.g. âhere are tips for batching your grocery shoppingâ)
I feel like thatâs a bit different. If I get a dedicated EA to do everyday things more efficiently, itâs fairly obvious how that could result in more hours or dollars going towards very high impact activities. (I donât expect every hour/âdollar saved to go towards very high impact activities, but a fair portion might.)
Perhaps you mean that EAs sometimes talk about this stuff in e.g. a Medium article aimed at the general public, perhaps partly with the intention of showing people how EA-style thinking is useful in a domain they already care about and thereby making them more likely to move towards EA in future. I do see how that is similar to the everyday longtermism project and examples.
But still, in that case the increased everyday efficiency of these people could fairly directly cause more hours/âdollars to go towards high impact activities, if these people do themselves become EAs/âEA-aligned. So it still feels a bit different.
---
Iâm not sure how important or valid any of these points are, and, as noted, overall I really like the ideas in this post.
I believe the framing in the 80,000 Hours podcast was something like when we run out of targeted things to do. But if we include global warming, depending on your temperature increase limit, we could easily spend $1 trillion per year. If people in developed countries make around $30,000 a year and they donate 10% of that, that would require about 300 million people. And of course there are many other global catastrophic risks. So I think itâs going to be a long time before we run out of targeted things to do. But it could be good to do some combination of everyday longtermism and targeted interventions.
I spent a little while thinking about this. My guess is that of the activities I list:
Alice and Bobâs efforts look comparable to donating (in external benefit/âeffort) when the longtermist portfolio is around $100B-$1T/âyear
Claraâs efforts looks comparable to donating when the longtermist portfolio is around $1B-$10B/âyear
Diyaâs efforts look comparable to donating when the longtermist portfolio is around $10B-$100B/âyear
Elmoâs efforts are harder to say because theyâre closer to directly trying to grow longtermist support, so the value diminishes as the existing portfolio gets larger just as for donations, and it more depends on underlying quality
All of those numbers are super crude and I might well disagree with myself if I came back later and estimated again. They also depend on lots of details (like how good the individuals are at executing on those strategies).
Perhaps most importantly, theyâre excluding the internal benefitsâif these activities are (as I suggest) partly good for practicing some longtermist judgement, then Iâd really want to see them as a complement to donation rather than just a competitor.
Ah, your first point makes me realise that at times I mistook the purpose of this âeveryday longtermismâ idea/âproject as more similar to finding Task Ys than it really is. I now remember that you didnât really frame this as âWhat can even âregular peopleâ do, even if theyâre not in key positions or at key junctures?â (If that was the framing, I might be more inclined to emphasise donating effectively, as well as things like voting effectivelyânot just for politicians with good charactersâand meeting with politicians to advocate for effective policies.)
Instead, I think youâre talking about what anyone can do (including but not limited to very dedicated and talented people) in âeveryday situationsâ, perhaps alongside other, more effective actions.
I think at times I was aware of that, but times I forgot it. Thatâs probably just on me, rather than an issue with the clarity of this post or project. But I guess perhaps misinterpretations along those lines are a failure mode to look out for and make extra efforts to prevent?
---
As for concrete examples, off the top of my head, the key thing is just focusing more on donating more and more effectively. This could also include finding ways to earn or save more money. I think that those actions are accessible to large numbers of people, would remain useful at scale (though with diminishing returns, of course), and intersect with lots of everyday situations (e.g., lots of everyday situations could allow opportunities to save money, or to spend less time on X in order to spend more time working out where to donate).
To be somewhat concrete: In a scenario with 5 million longtermists, if we choose a somewhat typical teacher who wants to make the world better, I think theyâd do more good by focusing a bit more on donating more and more effectively than by focusing a bit more on trying to cause their students to see themselves as moral actors and think clearly. (This is partly based on me expecting that itâs really hard to have a big, lasting impact on those variables as a teacher, which in turn in is loosely informed by research I read and experiences I had as a teacher. Though I do expect one could have some impact on those variables, and I think for some people itâs worth spending some effort on that.)
That said, I think it makes sense to use other examples as well as donating more and more effectively. Especially now that I remember what the purpose of this project actually is. But I am a bit surprised that donating more and more effectively wasnât one of the examples in your list? Is there a reason for that?
---
I feel like thatâs a bit different. If I get a dedicated EA to do everyday things more efficiently, itâs fairly obvious how that could result in more hours or dollars going towards very high impact activities. (I donât expect every hour/âdollar saved to go towards very high impact activities, but a fair portion might.)
Perhaps you mean that EAs sometimes talk about this stuff in e.g. a Medium article aimed at the general public, perhaps partly with the intention of showing people how EA-style thinking is useful in a domain they already care about and thereby making them more likely to move towards EA in future. I do see how that is similar to the everyday longtermism project and examples.
But still, in that case the increased everyday efficiency of these people could fairly directly cause more hours/âdollars to go towards high impact activities, if these people do themselves become EAs/âEA-aligned. So it still feels a bit different.
---
Iâm not sure how important or valid any of these points are, and, as noted, overall I really like the ideas in this post.
I believe the framing in the 80,000 Hours podcast was something like when we run out of targeted things to do. But if we include global warming, depending on your temperature increase limit, we could easily spend $1 trillion per year. If people in developed countries make around $30,000 a year and they donate 10% of that, that would require about 300 million people. And of course there are many other global catastrophic risks. So I think itâs going to be a long time before we run out of targeted things to do. But it could be good to do some combination of everyday longtermism and targeted interventions.
AgreeâI think an interesting challenge is âwhen does this become better than donating 10% to the top marginal charity?â
I spent a little while thinking about this. My guess is that of the activities I list:
Alice and Bobâs efforts look comparable to donating (in external benefit/âeffort) when the longtermist portfolio is around $100B-$1T/âyear
Claraâs efforts looks comparable to donating when the longtermist portfolio is around $1B-$10B/âyear
Diyaâs efforts look comparable to donating when the longtermist portfolio is around $10B-$100B/âyear
Elmoâs efforts are harder to say because theyâre closer to directly trying to grow longtermist support, so the value diminishes as the existing portfolio gets larger just as for donations, and it more depends on underlying quality
All of those numbers are super crude and I might well disagree with myself if I came back later and estimated again. They also depend on lots of details (like how good the individuals are at executing on those strategies).
Perhaps most importantly, theyâre excluding the internal benefitsâif these activities are (as I suggest) partly good for practicing some longtermist judgement, then Iâd really want to see them as a complement to donation rather than just a competitor.