A late comment to say that I don’t think RP takes the view that any given cause area is more important than another, either philosophically or in practice. Our GHD team produces a steady stream of-I think-interesting and helpful reports. Perhaps this perception stems from the fact that a lot of our GHD work is not public (for various reasons), or simply that people don’t engage with it as much as they might have in the past.
Thanks Tom. I’m sure that’s true in theory, but in practice RP is at the public forefront of the animal welfare work in the way that they aren’t in other work. That’s not to diminish other work, more to say that in the public sphere, the moral weights, cause prioritization work and surveys on community preferences point heavily in the direction of animal welfare.
So i might weakly disagree with your “in practice” claim. This might not be intentional or even bad if it’s pushing animal welfare work more to the forefront.
Thanks for jumping in Nick. I appreciate the distinction.
To be clear, what I meant by “in practice” is the actual amount of effort, time, and resources RP dedicates to GHD internally, which is distinct from its public footprint and its ultimate impact. My point is simply that characterizing RP as having “shifted” to animal welfare doesn’t capture my sense of internal resource allocation and the external impact of our GHD work (some of which may be not in the public domain), even if that’s how it appears externally.
A late comment to say that I don’t think RP takes the view that any given cause area is more important than another, either philosophically or in practice. Our GHD team produces a steady stream of-I think-interesting and helpful reports. Perhaps this perception stems from the fact that a lot of our GHD work is not public (for various reasons), or simply that people don’t engage with it as much as they might have in the past.
Thanks Tom. I’m sure that’s true in theory, but in practice RP is at the public forefront of the animal welfare work in the way that they aren’t in other work. That’s not to diminish other work, more to say that in the public sphere, the moral weights, cause prioritization work and surveys on community preferences point heavily in the direction of animal welfare.
So i might weakly disagree with your “in practice” claim. This might not be intentional or even bad if it’s pushing animal welfare work more to the forefront.
Thanks for jumping in Nick. I appreciate the distinction.
To be clear, what I meant by “in practice” is the actual amount of effort, time, and resources RP dedicates to GHD internally, which is distinct from its public footprint and its ultimate impact. My point is simply that characterizing RP as having “shifted” to animal welfare doesn’t capture my sense of internal resource allocation and the external impact of our GHD work (some of which may be not in the public domain), even if that’s how it appears externally.