I think these are great points for the movement in general and for “politics” in general, but I still think it’s more complicated in some cases.
For example, I’m just not convinced we can dismiss the EV of investing in having EA/EA-adjacent people in power, even if any given person is expected to make ~0 counterfactual difference, just in case the have to respond to a pivotal emergency—it would be convenient if we could, but I don’t think we can.
I’m doing a pretty grubby, what you call “real-world” project trying to get people to use less rat poison, but nothing I do to try to achieve that is outside of the reach of the law. My ideal solution would be to create birth control that is superior to rodenticides and even more convenient so that people will voluntary switch to that, but even if I had the perfect product in hand, marketing it would require navigating a maze of policy and special interests. Zooming out, there would much more incentive to create such a product if there were more restrictions on rodenticide use, and given their toxicity and destructive effect on the ecosystem, there are plenty of people already trying to do that. Do we ally with them? What if all we need to do is sign onto the coalition sponsoring a bill? What if we don’t 100% agree with the bill? I just think the answer to questions like that is going to be case-by-case.
I don’t like doing political stuff. It feels icky to me and I feel pretty naturally disadvantaged at political maneuvering. I would love if there were an EA reason not to have to deal with it. But unfortunately I suspect that real world wasn’t built around EA preferences :(
I think that in specific cases like this (e.g. reduce rodenticide use), where there’s no obvious partisan side to the issue, and it doesn’t come pre-polarized in the public mind, and most politicians and voters haven’t even heard of the issue or thought about it, then there’s a totally reasonable case for EA promotion of the cause at a political level.
I was mostly concerned about EA avoiding issues that are already partisan-polarized, already controversial, and already subject to pressure from vested interests with a lot of power and money.
More generally, I think it might be helpful to recruit and influence people who are already active in political life to adopt EA values and views as part of their ‘private persona’—as long as we don’t form explicit public alliances with organized political parties or partisan movements. For example, if some EA group in Washington DC wanted to do more outreach to smart young Congressional staffers (of both parties!), that could be quite helpful in terms of EA perspectives informing the behind-the-scenes thinking and priorities of Congressional Representatives.
Or if EAs want to pursue political careers as potential high-impact ways to promote EA initiatives, that could be great—as long as they avoid overly explicit ‘EA branding’ in their campaigns.
I just think we have to be very careful not to appear overtly allied with any political party. For many potential intersection of EA and politics, that might be very difficult—but for some (e.g. rodenticide use), it might be quite easy.
More generally, I think it might be helpful to recruit and influence people who are already active in political life to adopt EA values and views as part of their ‘private persona’—as long as we don’t form explicit public alliances with organized political parties or partisan movements.
Yes, I think this. I don’t see much point to having people elected or doing political interventions in the name of EA. But many object that even getting people who happen to be EAs into politics is too corrupting because, for example, they fundraise among EAs and their friends get partisan when supporting them.
For example, if some EA group in Washington DC wanted to do more outreach to smart young Congressional staffers (of both parties!)
Many consider this dangerously close to spinning the message to try to appeal to politicians.
Completely agree about not getting into encumbering alliances at the movement level.
I think these are great points for the movement in general and for “politics” in general, but I still think it’s more complicated in some cases.
For example, I’m just not convinced we can dismiss the EV of investing in having EA/EA-adjacent people in power, even if any given person is expected to make ~0 counterfactual difference, just in case the have to respond to a pivotal emergency—it would be convenient if we could, but I don’t think we can.
I’m doing a pretty grubby, what you call “real-world” project trying to get people to use less rat poison, but nothing I do to try to achieve that is outside of the reach of the law. My ideal solution would be to create birth control that is superior to rodenticides and even more convenient so that people will voluntary switch to that, but even if I had the perfect product in hand, marketing it would require navigating a maze of policy and special interests. Zooming out, there would much more incentive to create such a product if there were more restrictions on rodenticide use, and given their toxicity and destructive effect on the ecosystem, there are plenty of people already trying to do that. Do we ally with them? What if all we need to do is sign onto the coalition sponsoring a bill? What if we don’t 100% agree with the bill? I just think the answer to questions like that is going to be case-by-case.
I don’t like doing political stuff. It feels icky to me and I feel pretty naturally disadvantaged at political maneuvering. I would love if there were an EA reason not to have to deal with it. But unfortunately I suspect that real world wasn’t built around EA preferences :(
Hi Holly,
I think that in specific cases like this (e.g. reduce rodenticide use), where there’s no obvious partisan side to the issue, and it doesn’t come pre-polarized in the public mind, and most politicians and voters haven’t even heard of the issue or thought about it, then there’s a totally reasonable case for EA promotion of the cause at a political level.
I was mostly concerned about EA avoiding issues that are already partisan-polarized, already controversial, and already subject to pressure from vested interests with a lot of power and money.
More generally, I think it might be helpful to recruit and influence people who are already active in political life to adopt EA values and views as part of their ‘private persona’—as long as we don’t form explicit public alliances with organized political parties or partisan movements. For example, if some EA group in Washington DC wanted to do more outreach to smart young Congressional staffers (of both parties!), that could be quite helpful in terms of EA perspectives informing the behind-the-scenes thinking and priorities of Congressional Representatives.
Or if EAs want to pursue political careers as potential high-impact ways to promote EA initiatives, that could be great—as long as they avoid overly explicit ‘EA branding’ in their campaigns.
I just think we have to be very careful not to appear overtly allied with any political party. For many potential intersection of EA and politics, that might be very difficult—but for some (e.g. rodenticide use), it might be quite easy.
Yes, I think this. I don’t see much point to having people elected or doing political interventions in the name of EA. But many object that even getting people who happen to be EAs into politics is too corrupting because, for example, they fundraise among EAs and their friends get partisan when supporting them.
Many consider this dangerously close to spinning the message to try to appeal to politicians.
Completely agree about not getting into encumbering alliances at the movement level.