Because I want to avoid the whole thing, and I am far less attached to EA because of these arguments, while being on the opposite side of the political question from where I assume you are.
Anyways, I’d call this weak evidence for the ‘EA should split into rationalist!EA, normie!EA’
Intuitively it seems likely that it would be better for the movement though if only people from one side were leaving, rather than the controversies alienating both camps from the brand.
EA is already incredibly far outside the “normiesphere,” so to speak. Calling it that is making some incredibly normative assumptions. What you’re looking for is more along the lines of “social justice progressive” EA and SJP-skeptical EA. As much as some people like to claim “the ideology is not the movement,” I would agree that such a split is ultimately inevitable (though I think it will also gut a lot of what makes EA interesting, and eventually SJP-EA morphs into bog-standard Ford Foundation philanthropy).
Still not that accurate, since I suspect there’s a fair number of people that disagree with Hanania, but think he should be allowed to speak, while supporting the global health efforts in Africa. But so it goes, trying to name amorphous and decentralized groupings.
eventually SJP-EA morphs into bog-standard Ford Foundation philanthropy
This seems unlikely to me for several reasons, foremost amongst them that they would lose interest in animal welfare. Do you think that progressives are not truly invested in it, and that it’s primarily championed by their skeptics? Because thedataseemstoindicatetheopposite.
PETA has been around for longer than EA, among other (rather less obnoxious and more effective) animal welfare organizations; I don’t think losing what makes EA distinct would entail losing animal welfare altogether. The shrimp and insect crowd probably wouldn’t remain noticeable. Not because I think they overlap heavily with the skeptic-EA crowd (quite the opposite), but because they’d simply be drowned out. Tolerance of weirdness is a fragile thing.
I do think the evidence is already there for a certain kind of losing/wildly redefining “effective,” ie, criminal justice reform. Good cause, but no way to fit it into “effectiveness per dollar” terms without stretching the term to meaninglessness.
This isn’t good. This really isn’t good.
Because I want to avoid the whole thing, and I am far less attached to EA because of these arguments, while being on the opposite side of the political question from where I assume you are.
Anyways, I’d call this weak evidence for the ‘EA should split into rationalist!EA, normie!EA’
Intuitively it seems likely that it would be better for the movement though if only people from one side were leaving, rather than the controversies alienating both camps from the brand.
EA is already incredibly far outside the “normiesphere,” so to speak. Calling it that is making some incredibly normative assumptions. What you’re looking for is more along the lines of “social justice progressive” EA and SJP-skeptical EA. As much as some people like to claim “the ideology is not the movement,” I would agree that such a split is ultimately inevitable (though I think it will also gut a lot of what makes EA interesting, and eventually SJP-EA morphs into bog-standard Ford Foundation philanthropy).
Still not that accurate, since I suspect there’s a fair number of people that disagree with Hanania, but think he should be allowed to speak, while supporting the global health efforts in Africa. But so it goes, trying to name amorphous and decentralized groupings.
This seems unlikely to me for several reasons, foremost amongst them that they would lose interest in animal welfare. Do you think that progressives are not truly invested in it, and that it’s primarily championed by their skeptics? Because the data seems to indicate the opposite.
PETA has been around for longer than EA, among other (rather less obnoxious and more effective) animal welfare organizations; I don’t think losing what makes EA distinct would entail losing animal welfare altogether. The shrimp and insect crowd probably wouldn’t remain noticeable. Not because I think they overlap heavily with the skeptic-EA crowd (quite the opposite), but because they’d simply be drowned out. Tolerance of weirdness is a fragile thing.
I do think the evidence is already there for a certain kind of losing/wildly redefining “effective,” ie, criminal justice reform. Good cause, but no way to fit it into “effectiveness per dollar” terms without stretching the term to meaninglessness.