I think this post raises some interesting points (golden rice is very cool!), but I wonder if the framing could be a bit more precise.
For example the question “should GMOs be a cause area” seems like a less useful way to think about it. I think it make sense to think like this if:
The EA movement / EAs working on relevant cause areas were systematically ignoring / dismissing / shying away from GMOs .
So, generally advocating for GMOs in the post might make people rethink whether GMOs should be considered where they might have dismissed it earlier.
I’m not sure I’ve seen evidence of this, but it would be fairly easy to check with GiveWell and Charity Entrepreneurship why these didn’t make their top lists
The post was making the claim that generally advocating for GMOs would increase their tractability in a number of different areas where they could be promising. In this case, it would be interesting to know more about the other use cases for GMOs.
But otherwise, it probably makes sense to ask it on a case-by-case basis. E.g. the question “should golden rice be an intervention that we promote within the cause area of global health?” is a more targeted and clear question to me.
(Also I appreciate your epistemic status and the helpful headings made it very easy for me to navigate and comment.)
Now, after the discussion and comments, I tend to agree with your framing.
GMOs just seem to be a waaaay larger topic than I anticipated. It’s basically a tool to improve a lot of things. And among the possible application, it seems plausible that some of them are effective enough to be relevant for EAs.
I think there is room for case-by-case stuff like golden rice but also more general advocacy for deregulation, information, increased innovation, etc.
I think this post raises some interesting points (golden rice is very cool!), but I wonder if the framing could be a bit more precise.
For example the question “should GMOs be a cause area” seems like a less useful way to think about it. I think it make sense to think like this if:
The EA movement / EAs working on relevant cause areas were systematically ignoring / dismissing / shying away from GMOs .
So, generally advocating for GMOs in the post might make people rethink whether GMOs should be considered where they might have dismissed it earlier.
I’m not sure I’ve seen evidence of this, but it would be fairly easy to check with GiveWell and Charity Entrepreneurship why these didn’t make their top lists
The post was making the claim that generally advocating for GMOs would increase their tractability in a number of different areas where they could be promising. In this case, it would be interesting to know more about the other use cases for GMOs.
But otherwise, it probably makes sense to ask it on a case-by-case basis. E.g. the question “should golden rice be an intervention that we promote within the cause area of global health?” is a more targeted and clear question to me.
(Also I appreciate your epistemic status and the helpful headings made it very easy for me to navigate and comment.)
Now, after the discussion and comments, I tend to agree with your framing.
GMOs just seem to be a waaaay larger topic than I anticipated. It’s basically a tool to improve a lot of things. And among the possible application, it seems plausible that some of them are effective enough to be relevant for EAs.
I think there is room for case-by-case stuff like golden rice but also more general advocacy for deregulation, information, increased innovation, etc.