I think if both optics and impact both constitute a significant part of our motivations for doing politics, we shouldn’t be doing it.
The costs of compromise are often exponential with the number of separate criteria we optimise our projects for. It’s exponentially harder to find one date who’s rich, kind, smart, blue-eyed, tall, whatever, compared to finding n dates who are separately significant in n traits. I guess I’m advocating for the cause-prioritisation equivalent of polyamory or something. Oo
To optimise separately for optics and impact, ask:
What’s the most effective way we could achieve a good reputation?
And what’s the most effective way we could achieve impact?
Although projects purely optimised for impact should probably still compromise with reputation as a satisficing side-constraint.
Within animal advocacy, perhaps it’s better to separately invest in a portfolio of projects that legibly help relatable animals, and a portfolio of projects that are maximised for impact in a way that most people find hard to understand.
The latter, imo, looks like trying to somehow leverage the transition to a post-AGI world for the interests of animals. Or something.
I think if both optics and impact both constitute a significant part of our motivations for doing politics, we shouldn’t be doing it.
The costs of compromise are often exponential with the number of separate criteria we optimise our projects for. It’s exponentially harder to find one date who’s rich, kind, smart, blue-eyed, tall, whatever, compared to finding n dates who are separately significant in n traits. I guess I’m advocating for the cause-prioritisation equivalent of polyamory or something. Oo
To optimise separately for optics and impact, ask:
What’s the most effective way we could achieve a good reputation?
And what’s the most effective way we could achieve impact?
Although projects purely optimised for impact should probably still compromise with reputation as a satisficing side-constraint.
Within animal advocacy, perhaps it’s better to separately invest in a portfolio of projects that legibly help relatable animals, and a portfolio of projects that are maximised for impact in a way that most people find hard to understand.
The latter, imo, looks like trying to somehow leverage the transition to a post-AGI world for the interests of animals. Or something.