Thank you for the very thorough analysis! I remain a bit sceptical about the practical takeaways, maybe you could shed some light on your thinking there?
a) You seem to have a generally positive view of potentially influential advisership to the German government. The article on careers in politics (which I largely agree with, I think) as well as very basic conjecture on the general makeup of influential departments in the German government seems to imply that there is a strong emphasis on party politics, ‘Ochsentour’-like progression through the system etc. in getting to positions that can actually meaningfully influence policy (esp. given the comparatively weak role of external advisory bodies like thinktanks).
To me, this seem to require a relatively substantial commitment to popular positions that make for a good base for quick progression through the ranks of a party—the more counterintuitive or ‘outlandish’ one’s priorities are when starting out, the lower the chance to get to influential positions seems to be. This seems to imply to me that a very particular set of already generally popular positions is rewarded—making it somewhat unlikely that a person with a sufficiently strong commitment to underappreciated EA-positions to actually change things will actually succeed in reaching influential positions in the first place.
b) This might be more of a metaethical pet peeve of mine, but why do you suppose being unsympathetic towards consequentialist reasoning is necessarily disadvantageous to EA efforts? There seem to be many causes that aren’t really particularly controversial between moral theories, but are rather a matter of weeding out irrational biases, perception errors, systemic barriers etc. - there seems to be lots of room to improve before you hit any barriers created by deep-rooted German Idealism (if they do exist).
(I’m aware the two questions seem to push in opposite directions—I don’t really have a strong prima facie opinion on the attractivity of German policy-making, those were just things that came to mind)
I’d be very curious to hear your thoughts, and thank you again for the write-up!
a) I share that belief to some extent and was initially very skeptical of influencing any government, especially the German one. However, most of my encounters with EAs in politics updated me towards “influence seems easier than I thought”. These are all second-hand experiences but include: - People working in different German ministries detailing how their EA approaches were welcome by their colleagues and shaped some parts of the legislation, e.g. on climate change. - People working in think tanks saying that people in ministries took their ideas much more seriously than they expected. - EAs giving workshops in a German ministry that resulted in prolonged cooperation. The workshop was less about specific proposals and more about ideas of measuring impact and quantifying stuff. - EAs apparently consulting governments of various countries on Covid, Biorisk and AI. Some of them might be overblown and I don’t know how much impact they really have but I guess people in politics are usually happy to work with outsiders that have some expertise and seem well-intentioned. I think the route of working yourself up the ranks within political positions is much harder and your suspicions are probably correct there.
b) I agree with you that most problems that EA cares about are bad under most moral theories and it probably doesn’t matter too much. However, I think there are some cases where it does. For example: - Urgency: You can think that factory farming is bad because the animals suffer a lot or because we violate their rights. My intuition is that as soon as you start calculating, ending factory farming becomes more urgent because there are just so many animals that suffer. The rights-based approach doesn’t imply this urgency to me but maybe I’m strawmanning. - Some of the German ideals are just really weird, tbh. Like why do so many Germans love savings and hate public dept? Or why are they so pacifist even when it means not helping Ukraine, an important ally and partner? Just a bit more consequentialism might be helpful there IMO.
I would think that for energy supply reasons Russia is a much more important partner for Germany than Ukraine, and that entirely explains German reluctance to help Ukraine, do you think this is incorrect?
I agree in general that depending on Russia for your energy is concerning. However, two points:
(1) Given that it is possible to import LNG from the US (although more expensive), energy dependence on Russia is always in a sense chosen and needs itself to be explained.
(2) This is just one data point, but at least in 2017 german dependence on gas was not higher than neighbouring countries. https://imgur.com/a/UhHaZ3B
As weird as this sounds, I would hope that is the reason because it would mean Germany acts for understandable reasons. However, my discussions with other Germans and broader public sentiment suggest to me that Germans are insanely pacifistic. Even things like sending troops to stabilize a region when asked by the respective country are seen as critical by many. https://twitter.com/RikeFranke a German IR researcher/pundit seems to share my belief. Maybe you should check out her twitter.
Thank you for the very thorough analysis! I remain a bit sceptical about the practical takeaways, maybe you could shed some light on your thinking there?
a) You seem to have a generally positive view of potentially influential advisership to the German government. The article on careers in politics (which I largely agree with, I think) as well as very basic conjecture on the general makeup of influential departments in the German government seems to imply that there is a strong emphasis on party politics, ‘Ochsentour’-like progression through the system etc. in getting to positions that can actually meaningfully influence policy (esp. given the comparatively weak role of external advisory bodies like thinktanks).
To me, this seem to require a relatively substantial commitment to popular positions that make for a good base for quick progression through the ranks of a party—the more counterintuitive or ‘outlandish’ one’s priorities are when starting out, the lower the chance to get to influential positions seems to be. This seems to imply to me that a very particular set of already generally popular positions is rewarded—making it somewhat unlikely that a person with a sufficiently strong commitment to underappreciated EA-positions to actually change things will actually succeed in reaching influential positions in the first place.
b) This might be more of a metaethical pet peeve of mine, but why do you suppose being unsympathetic towards consequentialist reasoning is necessarily disadvantageous to EA efforts? There seem to be many causes that aren’t really particularly controversial between moral theories, but are rather a matter of weeding out irrational biases, perception errors, systemic barriers etc. - there seems to be lots of room to improve before you hit any barriers created by deep-rooted German Idealism (if they do exist).
(I’m aware the two questions seem to push in opposite directions—I don’t really have a strong prima facie opinion on the attractivity of German policy-making, those were just things that came to mind)
I’d be very curious to hear your thoughts, and thank you again for the write-up!
a) I share that belief to some extent and was initially very skeptical of influencing any government, especially the German one. However, most of my encounters with EAs in politics updated me towards “influence seems easier than I thought”. These are all second-hand experiences but include:
- People working in different German ministries detailing how their EA approaches were welcome by their colleagues and shaped some parts of the legislation, e.g. on climate change.
- People working in think tanks saying that people in ministries took their ideas much more seriously than they expected.
- EAs giving workshops in a German ministry that resulted in prolonged cooperation. The workshop was less about specific proposals and more about ideas of measuring impact and quantifying stuff.
- EAs apparently consulting governments of various countries on Covid, Biorisk and AI.
Some of them might be overblown and I don’t know how much impact they really have but I guess people in politics are usually happy to work with outsiders that have some expertise and seem well-intentioned.
I think the route of working yourself up the ranks within political positions is much harder and your suspicions are probably correct there.
b) I agree with you that most problems that EA cares about are bad under most moral theories and it probably doesn’t matter too much. However, I think there are some cases where it does. For example:
- Urgency: You can think that factory farming is bad because the animals suffer a lot or because we violate their rights. My intuition is that as soon as you start calculating, ending factory farming becomes more urgent because there are just so many animals that suffer. The rights-based approach doesn’t imply this urgency to me but maybe I’m strawmanning.
- Some of the German ideals are just really weird, tbh. Like why do so many Germans love savings and hate public dept? Or why are they so pacifist even when it means not helping Ukraine, an important ally and partner? Just a bit more consequentialism might be helpful there IMO.
I would think that for energy supply reasons Russia is a much more important partner for Germany than Ukraine, and that entirely explains German reluctance to help Ukraine, do you think this is incorrect?
I agree in general that depending on Russia for your energy is concerning. However, two points:
(1) Given that it is possible to import LNG from the US (although more expensive), energy dependence on Russia is always in a sense chosen and needs itself to be explained.
(2) This is just one data point, but at least in 2017 german dependence on gas was not higher than neighbouring countries. https://imgur.com/a/UhHaZ3B
Good points, thanks!
As weird as this sounds, I would hope that is the reason because it would mean Germany acts for understandable reasons.
However, my discussions with other Germans and broader public sentiment suggest to me that Germans are insanely pacifistic. Even things like sending troops to stabilize a region when asked by the respective country are seen as critical by many. https://twitter.com/RikeFranke a German IR researcher/pundit seems to share my belief. Maybe you should check out her twitter.
That’s interesting, and if true a very disappointing and convenient delusion. Thanks!