I agree with this, but a meta comment. I’m sort of feeling uncomfortable with how much of the defence of EA funding global health is phrased in indirect terms rather than defending the object level value itself:
E.g.,
it’s a good testing ground, has good feedback loops
FWIW I don’t think this really constitutes a defence of global health spending. It’s a defence of talking about global health when explaining what EA is.
FWIW my own opinion is that funding global health is defensible and has a strong case (vis a vis existential risk and broad Lt-ism)...
at least for people who don’t have a “total population” ethic, weight suffering heavily, or are morally uncertain about this.
I want to see it considered/defended on its own grounds; otherwise it cannot sustain.
Ultimately (and in other situations) people will say ‘well, we can signal to ourselves and others and get good feedback loops in other, we don’t need to support global health interventions’
I agree with this, but a meta comment. I’m sort of feeling uncomfortable with how much of the defence of EA funding global health is phrased in indirect terms rather than defending the object level value itself:
E.g.,
it’s a good testing ground, has good feedback loops
has good optics
keeps us grounded
Etc.
FWIW I don’t think this really constitutes a defence of global health spending. It’s a defence of talking about global health when explaining what EA is.
FWIW my own opinion is that funding global health is defensible and has a strong case (vis a vis existential risk and broad Lt-ism)...
at least for people who don’t have a “total population” ethic, weight suffering heavily, or are morally uncertain about this.
I want to see it considered/defended on its own grounds; otherwise it cannot sustain.
Ultimately (and in other situations) people will say ‘well, we can signal to ourselves and others and get good feedback loops in other, we don’t need to support global health interventions’