Hi Pablo. Cause neutrality is “the view that causes should be prioritized based on impartial assessments of impact rather than on other considerations, such as saliency or personal attachment”. As far as I can tell, the best AW interventions are way more cost-effective than the best in GHD, so I would say cause neutrality would imply recommending the best AW interventions over the best ones in GHD.
What I mean is that there’s some hard to objectively reduce uncertainty about these choices, so it is important to attach the pledge to the method, not the result we get at one point in time.
It would be similar as EA becoming just about animal welfare. Even if it were the most effective use of resources, you want to keep the method, not just stick to the result, and obviate how you got there.
Hi Pablo. Cause neutrality is “the view that causes should be prioritized based on impartial assessments of impact rather than on other considerations, such as saliency or personal attachment”. As far as I can tell, the best AW interventions are way more cost-effective than the best in GHD, so I would say cause neutrality would imply recommending the best AW interventions over the best ones in GHD.
What I mean is that there’s some hard to objectively reduce uncertainty about these choices, so it is important to attach the pledge to the method, not the result we get at one point in time.
It would be similar as EA becoming just about animal welfare. Even if it were the most effective use of resources, you want to keep the method, not just stick to the result, and obviate how you got there.
After all, changing assumptions (for example in the tools provided by rethink priorities, https://rethinkpriorities.org/our-research-areas/worldview-investigations/) you can get different answers of what you should prioritise.