I don’t feel strongly about this, but moderately support a switch—it won’t affect my decision to pledge, which I’ll do so either way as soon as I can support myself while donating.
Community-wise, I support global poverty above other causes intellectually, but empathise more with transhumany types, so maybe I don’t have a horse in the race. 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.(1)
If the pledge changes, I strongly support suggest emphasising the GWWC mission statement about being committed to fixing global poverty(1) as its first priority.
This is perhaps the most demanding pledge in the EA world, so it would make sense to allow EAs of all stripes to commit themselves to it, as long as the pledge stands apart from GWWC main.
On to pedantry—I feel like if you’re going to change the pledge at all, it would be a good time to sharpen the wording rather than just delete the word ‘developing’ throughout. It feels somewhat bloated, though I’m unsure about exactly how to change it. Some suggestions:
I think ’10%′ would look much better than ‘ten percent’ - you could more easily pick it out when scanning the paragraph for a sense of what the org is about.
‘whichever organisations can most effectively use it to improve the lives of others’ feels wordier than it needs to be, but I can’t quite see how to trim it without losing anything significant.
The first two clauses seem to overlap, and could probably be combined.
‘now and in the years to come’ could be shortened to ‘hereafter’ (or perhaps something less bureaucratic), but it’s also ambiguous and perhaps superfluous. If it refers to the pledging duration, it’s redundant given the ‘rest of my life … retirement’ line. If it refers to ‘orgs that … improve others’ then I’m not sure it adds anything anyway. Do we suppose that people would give to orgs expecting them to use the money as well as possible for 10 years then blow it on a party?
(1) That said, I feel like animal welfarists get even shorter shrift, with only one comparatively small organisation serving them and being the butt of similar attitudes. I wonder separately if there’s something to be gained by expanding GWWC’s broad remit to explicitly include them, even if in practice you leave all the research to ACE.
I quite like the current slightly slow and ponderous language. It gives a feeling of seriousness to it, which I think is appropriate given how large the commitment is.
There may well still be changes to the language I’d support, but I’m not sure without specific suggestions. I think “ten percent” is a bit better than “10%”, and “now and in years to come” is quite a lot better than “hereafter”.
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.
Thanks for taking the time to let me know your thoughts in detail, and it’s useful to have a bit of your background for context. As you say, people focused on poverty sometimes seem to get a slightly short shrift in the online EA community (that’s not at all my experience in person, at least in Oxford). The two books being released focus quite a bit on poverty rather than other causes though, so it’s likely that the current atmosphere is temporary. It does seem important for us to keep our current focus, whether or not we change the pledge.
“Those committed to poverty, who—in other EA orgs—often seem to be looked on as incomplete or fledgling EAs,”
My experience matches Arepo’s both online and in person. (I found it most prevalent in Oxford in fact). Also I agree this is even more true when it comes to AR.
I don’t feel strongly about this, but moderately support a switch—it won’t affect my decision to pledge, which I’ll do so either way as soon as I can support myself while donating.
Community-wise, I support global poverty above other causes intellectually, but empathise more with transhumany types, so maybe I don’t have a horse in the race. 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.(1)
If the pledge changes, I strongly support suggest emphasising the GWWC mission statement about being committed to fixing global poverty(1) as its first priority.
This is perhaps the most demanding pledge in the EA world, so it would make sense to allow EAs of all stripes to commit themselves to it, as long as the pledge stands apart from GWWC main.
On to pedantry—I feel like if you’re going to change the pledge at all, it would be a good time to sharpen the wording rather than just delete the word ‘developing’ throughout. It feels somewhat bloated, though I’m unsure about exactly how to change it. Some suggestions:
I think ’10%′ would look much better than ‘ten percent’ - you could more easily pick it out when scanning the paragraph for a sense of what the org is about.
‘whichever organisations can most effectively use it to improve the lives of others’ feels wordier than it needs to be, but I can’t quite see how to trim it without losing anything significant.
The first two clauses seem to overlap, and could probably be combined.
‘now and in the years to come’ could be shortened to ‘hereafter’ (or perhaps something less bureaucratic), but it’s also ambiguous and perhaps superfluous. If it refers to the pledging duration, it’s redundant given the ‘rest of my life … retirement’ line. If it refers to ‘orgs that … improve others’ then I’m not sure it adds anything anyway. Do we suppose that people would give to orgs expecting them to use the money as well as possible for 10 years then blow it on a party?
(1) That said, I feel like animal welfarists get even shorter shrift, with only one comparatively small organisation serving them and being the butt of similar attitudes. I wonder separately if there’s something to be gained by expanding GWWC’s broad remit to explicitly include them, even if in practice you leave all the research to ACE.
I quite like the current slightly slow and ponderous language. It gives a feeling of seriousness to it, which I think is appropriate given how large the commitment is.
There may well still be changes to the language I’d support, but I’m not sure without specific suggestions. I think “ten percent” is a bit better than “10%”, and “now and in years to come” is quite a lot better than “hereafter”.
‘Henceforth’ is another possibility. Swaps bureaucratic for pompous, maybe.
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.
Thanks for taking the time to let me know your thoughts in detail, and it’s useful to have a bit of your background for context. As you say, people focused on poverty sometimes seem to get a slightly short shrift in the online EA community (that’s not at all my experience in person, at least in Oxford). The two books being released focus quite a bit on poverty rather than other causes though, so it’s likely that the current atmosphere is temporary. It does seem important for us to keep our current focus, whether or not we change the pledge.
“Those committed to poverty, who—in other EA orgs—often seem to be looked on as incomplete or fledgling EAs,”
My experience matches Arepo’s both online and in person. (I found it most prevalent in Oxford in fact). Also I agree this is even more true when it comes to AR.