Any kind of democratic control that tries to have “EAs at large” make decisions will need to decide on who will get to vote. None of the ways I can think of for deciding seem very good to me (donating a certain amount? having engaged a certain amount in a visible way?). I think they’re both bad as methods to choose a group of decisionmakers and more broadly harmful. “You have done X so now you are A Real EA” is the message that will be sent to some and “Sorry, you haven’t done X, so you’re not A Real EA” to others, regardless of the method used for voter selection. I expect that it will become a distraction or discouragement from the actual real work of altruism.
I also worry that this discussion is importing too much of our intuitions about political control of countries. Like most people who live in democracies, I have a lot of intuitions about why democracy is good for me. I’d put them into two categories:
Democracy is good for me because I am a better decisionmaker about myself than other people are about me
Most of this is a feeling that I know best about myself: I have the local knowledge that I need to make decisions about how I am ruled
But other parts of it are procedural: I think that when other people decide on my behalf, they’ll arrange things in their own favor
Democracy is good for me because it’s deontologically wrong for other people to rule me
I don’t think either of those categories really apply here. EA is not about me, is not for me, does not rule me, and should not take my own desires as a Sam into account any more than it does, probably.
I wasn’t planning on commenting, but since you addressed me by name, I felt compelled to respond.
Democratization changes the relative power distribution within EA. The people proposing it are usually power-seeking in some way and already have plans to capitalize off of a democratic shift.
On democratic control:
Any kind of democratic control that tries to have “EAs at large” make decisions will need to decide on who will get to vote. None of the ways I can think of for deciding seem very good to me (donating a certain amount? having engaged a certain amount in a visible way?). I think they’re both bad as methods to choose a group of decisionmakers and more broadly harmful. “You have done X so now you are A Real EA” is the message that will be sent to some and “Sorry, you haven’t done X, so you’re not A Real EA” to others, regardless of the method used for voter selection. I expect that it will become a distraction or discouragement from the actual real work of altruism.
I also worry that this discussion is importing too much of our intuitions about political control of countries. Like most people who live in democracies, I have a lot of intuitions about why democracy is good for me. I’d put them into two categories:
Democracy is good for me because I am a better decisionmaker about myself than other people are about me
Most of this is a feeling that I know best about myself: I have the local knowledge that I need to make decisions about how I am ruled
But other parts of it are procedural: I think that when other people decide on my behalf, they’ll arrange things in their own favor
Democracy is good for me because it’s deontologically wrong for other people to rule me
I don’t think either of those categories really apply here. EA is not about me, is not for me, does not rule me, and should not take my own desires as a Sam into account any more than it does, probably.
I wasn’t planning on commenting, but since you addressed me by name, I felt compelled to respond.
Democratization changes the relative power distribution within EA. The people proposing it are usually power-seeking in some way and already have plans to capitalize off of a democratic shift.