I do feel as though GWWC is and should remain an important haven for those committed to poverty, who—in other EA orgs—often seem to be looked on as incomplete or fledgling EAs, an attitude which surely wouldn’t help if it developed within GWWC as well.
Very much agreed, that’s why I was concerned to see this comment. Having an influx of people to the members groups who think that donating to poverty charities is many many times less good than giving to AI work or meta causes could create that sort of attitude, making the old members feel crowded out.
I think ’10%′ would look much better than ‘ten percent’
Agreed.
‘now and in the years to come’ could be shortened to ‘hereafter’
This seems a good change which clarifies the meaning.
Very much agreed, that’s why I was concerned to see this comment.
FWIW, if that’s the Joey I think it is, I don’t think he meant to imply he agreed (IIRC he regards animal welfare causes most highly).
There are also quite a few CEA staff who do support the more traditional stuff, last I heard, though they’re probably a minority (but among the minority, unsurprisingly concentrated in GWWC).
Having an influx of people to the members groups who think that donating to poverty charities is many many times less good than giving to AI work or meta causes could create that sort of attitude, making the old members feel crowded out.
You could just as easily say that x-riskers (or anyone else not explicitly covered by the pledge) currently feels crowded out. I personally feel excluded because the pledge does not extend its circle of caring to nonhuman animals, and others have expressed the same feeling.
For that matter, a pledge that opens up to any cause with strong evidence of effectiveness still crowds out non-EAs.
Very much agreed, that’s why I was concerned to see this comment. Having an influx of people to the members groups who think that donating to poverty charities is many many times less good than giving to AI work or meta causes could create that sort of attitude, making the old members feel crowded out.
Agreed.
This seems a good change which clarifies the meaning.
FWIW, if that’s the Joey I think it is, I don’t think he meant to imply he agreed (IIRC he regards animal welfare causes most highly).
There are also quite a few CEA staff who do support the more traditional stuff, last I heard, though they’re probably a minority (but among the minority, unsurprisingly concentrated in GWWC).
Currently I donate to poverty causes although last time we talked I think I was donating to AR.
You could just as easily say that x-riskers (or anyone else not explicitly covered by the pledge) currently feels crowded out. I personally feel excluded because the pledge does not extend its circle of caring to nonhuman animals, and others have expressed the same feeling.
For that matter, a pledge that opens up to any cause with strong evidence of effectiveness still crowds out non-EAs.