Making this change would basically allow other causes that may have significant philosophical and/or practical baggage to trade on that reputation while undermining the focus and work on extreme poverty. It does nothing to help the fight against extreme poverty and may harm it, while boosting those who are seeking to advance other causes.
This makes it sound like the causes are competing with each other, which I don’t think is true. Changing the pledge isn’t about undermining the focus on extreme poverty, it’s about recognising that what we ultimately care about is saving lives, no matter where or when they are, whether they are in the developing world, the developed world, or in the future. Some people think the best way to save lives is to donate to far-future oriented causes, others think the best way is to donate to poverty causes—these people disagree, but mostly they agree that what they ultimately care about is the same and this is just a really tough question. Given that none of us can be certain that poverty is the best cause to focus on, it seems beneficial to be more inclusive of other potentially effective cause areas, so we can encourage more discussion and debate amongst the people who disagree. It is not a competition or a matter of one cause trying to crowd out the other.
To be a little rude, we don’t need more ways for people looking to blur the lines between their “Institute for Rich White Guys to write Harry Potter Fan Fiction” (as it was described in one recent debate elsewhere) and the reputations of charities fighting malaria in the developing world—there are more than enough other avenues within effective altruism where this happens already as a historical accident of where it first found purchase.
Again, you’re assuming that there being a link between people focused on fighting malaria and those concerned about existential risk is a bad thing. I acknowledge that there are PR issues with xrisk, and there are concerns there—but ultimately, it seems a good thing to me to have a community where people from both these groups can acknowledge their shared values and have productive debates with one another.
“it’s about recognising that what we ultimately care about is saving lives, no matter where or when they are”
This is not why I joined GWWC. I joined because I am concerned about causes that demonstrably and effectively help human people today—not causes that may conceivably if we accept unfalsifiable/provable premises help people in the future or causes that provably help animals (because I reject the philosophical premises of that cause).
I fully support cause X—effectively fighting poverty in the developing world. I find causes Y & Z interesting but highly problematic, and don’t want to be a part of an organisation that lends them undue credibility and support beyond discussion and debate. I signed up because I believe in cause X—if the organisation changes to be about causes XYZ I would probably leave to find somewhere that only supports the cause I actually support or just declare my donations independently or something.
So this new pledge would change the whole relationship of the pledge. Currently, GGWC members make a pledge to give 10% of their income to a very narrow range of charities based on very strict criteria. Under the new pledge, all you need is a philosophical argument about why the cause you support is one that does “the most good”—all the rigour and testing based on actually comparable measures is gone.
There are loads of other causes , not much discussed around here, which would qualify under the new pledge. For example, there are many people in the world today who believe that the best cause to help other people is to donate a significant part (10% infact) of their income towards god’s plan by funding the expansion of evangelical churches across the world. Would you be comfortable with them signing the GWWC pledge and associating themselves with the organisation? What about those who feel that legalising drugs is the most important cause because they like to get high? or Hindu charities who fund sanctuaries for cows because they believe cows are sacred animals with incommensurable value above mere people?
For example, there are many people in the world today who believe that the best cause to help other people is to donate a significant part (10% infact) of their income towards god’s plan by funding the expansion of evangelical churches across the world. Would you be comfortable with them signing the GWWC pledge and associating themselves with the organisation? What about those who feel that legalising drugs is the most important cause because they like to get high? or Hindu charities who fund sanctuaries for cows because they believe cows are sacred animals with incommensurable value above mere people?
I’m not sure these people are much more easily excluded by the current pledge. You could still get people who have very bizarre beliefs about the best way to help people in poverty. This is always going to be a risk—but it seems unlikely people who are overly attached to specific causes are going to find the GWWC community that appealing.
I joined because I am concerned about causes that demonstrably and effectively help human people today—not causes that may conceivably if we accept unfalsifiable/provable premises help people in the future or causes that provably help animals (because I reject the philosophical premises of that cause).
Are you saying that you genuinely care more about people alive today than people who will live in the future? Or that you care about them equally but think we have much more evidence for helping the former category and so should focus our efforts there? If the former, then I think you’ll find a lot of the existing GWWC community disagree with you. If the latter, then it seems that you should at least be open to considering and investigating causes that help people in the future, even if you don’t currently think that the standards of evidence are anywhere near high enough, which I agree is reasonable.
I’m not sure these people are much more easily excluded by the current pledge. You could still get people who have very bizarre beliefs about the best way to help people in poverty.
Technically that’s possible but in practice GWWC members don’t currently tend to have those beliefs—the pledging community has a clear feel of being focused on evidence-based poverty charities. The new pledge that’s being consulted about would certainly include more people, and AlasdairGives is right that there’s nothing in it that’d exclude the large numbers of people who tithe to their churches. If they joined in mass (which is unlikely absent a concerted effort to sign them up) that would certainly change the feel of the community to me.
Are you saying that you genuinely care more about people alive today than people who will live in the future?
It’s worth noting that many people do, and that this isn’t obviously indefensible. So people can genuinely care more about existing people or existing creatures :-)
It’s worth noting that many people do, and that this isn’t obviously indefensible. So people can genuinely care more about existing people or existing creatures :-)
Yeah, I don’t mean that it’s unheard of—but I do think this is a pretty rare view within the EA community.
I consider existing online communities, and official organizations aligned with effective altruism, sufficient to host such debates (between existential risk reduction, poverty reduction, and/or other popular cause areas). If they aren’t doing so already, I believe an investment of effort would make them so. Thus, I don’t that as an argument in favor of Giving What We Can changing its pledge.
This makes it sound like the causes are competing with each other, which I don’t think is true. Changing the pledge isn’t about undermining the focus on extreme poverty, it’s about recognising that what we ultimately care about is saving lives, no matter where or when they are, whether they are in the developing world, the developed world, or in the future. Some people think the best way to save lives is to donate to far-future oriented causes, others think the best way is to donate to poverty causes—these people disagree, but mostly they agree that what they ultimately care about is the same and this is just a really tough question. Given that none of us can be certain that poverty is the best cause to focus on, it seems beneficial to be more inclusive of other potentially effective cause areas, so we can encourage more discussion and debate amongst the people who disagree. It is not a competition or a matter of one cause trying to crowd out the other.
Again, you’re assuming that there being a link between people focused on fighting malaria and those concerned about existential risk is a bad thing. I acknowledge that there are PR issues with xrisk, and there are concerns there—but ultimately, it seems a good thing to me to have a community where people from both these groups can acknowledge their shared values and have productive debates with one another.
Well, they are competing for time and money, both of which are scarce.
“it’s about recognising that what we ultimately care about is saving lives, no matter where or when they are”
This is not why I joined GWWC. I joined because I am concerned about causes that demonstrably and effectively help human people today—not causes that may conceivably if we accept unfalsifiable/provable premises help people in the future or causes that provably help animals (because I reject the philosophical premises of that cause).
I fully support cause X—effectively fighting poverty in the developing world. I find causes Y & Z interesting but highly problematic, and don’t want to be a part of an organisation that lends them undue credibility and support beyond discussion and debate. I signed up because I believe in cause X—if the organisation changes to be about causes XYZ I would probably leave to find somewhere that only supports the cause I actually support or just declare my donations independently or something.
So this new pledge would change the whole relationship of the pledge. Currently, GGWC members make a pledge to give 10% of their income to a very narrow range of charities based on very strict criteria. Under the new pledge, all you need is a philosophical argument about why the cause you support is one that does “the most good”—all the rigour and testing based on actually comparable measures is gone.
There are loads of other causes , not much discussed around here, which would qualify under the new pledge. For example, there are many people in the world today who believe that the best cause to help other people is to donate a significant part (10% infact) of their income towards god’s plan by funding the expansion of evangelical churches across the world. Would you be comfortable with them signing the GWWC pledge and associating themselves with the organisation? What about those who feel that legalising drugs is the most important cause because they like to get high? or Hindu charities who fund sanctuaries for cows because they believe cows are sacred animals with incommensurable value above mere people?
I’m not sure these people are much more easily excluded by the current pledge. You could still get people who have very bizarre beliefs about the best way to help people in poverty. This is always going to be a risk—but it seems unlikely people who are overly attached to specific causes are going to find the GWWC community that appealing.
Are you saying that you genuinely care more about people alive today than people who will live in the future? Or that you care about them equally but think we have much more evidence for helping the former category and so should focus our efforts there? If the former, then I think you’ll find a lot of the existing GWWC community disagree with you. If the latter, then it seems that you should at least be open to considering and investigating causes that help people in the future, even if you don’t currently think that the standards of evidence are anywhere near high enough, which I agree is reasonable.
Technically that’s possible but in practice GWWC members don’t currently tend to have those beliefs—the pledging community has a clear feel of being focused on evidence-based poverty charities. The new pledge that’s being consulted about would certainly include more people, and AlasdairGives is right that there’s nothing in it that’d exclude the large numbers of people who tithe to their churches. If they joined in mass (which is unlikely absent a concerted effort to sign them up) that would certainly change the feel of the community to me.
It’s worth noting that many people do, and that this isn’t obviously indefensible. So people can genuinely care more about existing people or existing creatures :-)
Yeah, I don’t mean that it’s unheard of—but I do think this is a pretty rare view within the EA community.
I consider existing online communities, and official organizations aligned with effective altruism, sufficient to host such debates (between existential risk reduction, poverty reduction, and/or other popular cause areas). If they aren’t doing so already, I believe an investment of effort would make them so. Thus, I don’t that as an argument in favor of Giving What We Can changing its pledge.