I agree with this, and like to lean on what evidence we have rather than theory and speculation
There are many past events which increased the value of the future unintentionally, like free markets and most scientific advancements.
Previous examples of people and movements which intentionally planned to increase the value of the future mostly achieved it through concrete current change in laws and cultural norms. When MLK said “I have a dream”, he fought for change then and there to make that dream a reality. Efforts like these have had a huge effect. This list is just what comes to mind, in no particular order and far from extensive. Most of these required community organising and protest as at least part of the process to achieve the concrete change.
- Abolition of slavery - Women’s suffrage - Nuclear Treaties - Universal declaration of human rights (which although breaking down a bit has been so successful that “human rights” are seen almost as an objective truth for many people) - Banning warfare with poisonous gases - Civil rights movement - Access to free HIV treatment becoming a universal “right” through social movements and PEPFAR - Animal welfare movement—specifically the cage free revolution - Democratic transformation of nation states - LGBTQ+ rights movements and legal changes - Social welfare movements for the poorest part of the population in many rich countries
I think efforts to improve the value of the future through concrete current change right here right now are fantastic and EA can continue to focus on those where they are neglected and tractable, but I struggle to see a clear Theory of Change for other possible mechanisms due to, as you put it very well”The complexity of socio-technological and moral evolution”.Good things locked in now can be really hard to change in democratic countries. I would (perhaps slightly controversially) cite Obamacare as an example of something that was so beneficial to so many it became extremely hard to reverse.
I’m very open to other pathways for creating change that don’t involve a concrete change right here right now, but you’ll need to convince me.
Do you think “Most of these required community organising and protest as at least part of the process to achieve the concrete change.” is that strong a statement? There is a pretty strong correlation between protest/organising and these changes. Elite consense is clearly very important, but I think that the voice of the masses can move the elite to consensus so there’s some chicken and egg there. Also to mention a few cases here where I don’t think elite consensus was strong at the time of change and their hand’s were perhaps forced...
- Access to free HIV treatment (This I’m pretty sure of) - Civil rights movement - Women’s suffrage
I do find this a tricky issue to keep a scout mindset on here on the forum, as I find EAs in general are unusually against protest and organising compared to other communities I am a part of. My feeling is this is largely because the nature of many EAs is more to be into research, debate and policy rather than social roles like organising and protest.
What makes you think it is overstated? I think its a tricky counterfactual question with a lot of room for conjecture.…
Tangentially re: protest, I think things are slowly shifting, due to the work of folks like James Özden founding Social Change Lab to understand how social change movements can be more evidence-based and effective. For instance, James changed my mind on the effectiveness of radical protest tactics in What’s everyone got against throwing soup?, which drew upon this literature review to conclude that
A nonviolent radical flank is likely to help, not hinder, a social movement. Specifically, we think there’s good evidence it can increase support for more moderate groups and increase the salience of an issue without harming support for the overall movement’s policy goals.
I’d also signal-boost James’ article Protest Movements Could Be More Effective Than the Best Charities published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. You should always take charts like the one below claiming superlative cost-eff with a metric ton of salt, but I mostly trust the general quality of his analysis and think his bottomline holds up.
That said, James seems to be the only person banging this drum, so I suppose your observation still broadly holds true.
I think James’s did is really important and shows the potential good if a radical flank
Traditionally though movements and organizing was often around issues which has decent public support already and wasnt necessarily that radical. The civil rights movement and the HIV medicine campaigners directly moved the elites towards their goal, and didn’t just move the needle on public opinion for the better like the radical flank can
I agree that the examples you list are ones where organizing and protest played a large role, and I agree that it’s effectively impossible to know the counterfactual—but I was thinking of the other examples, several where there was no organizing and protest, but which happened anyways—which seems like clear evidence that they are contributory and helpful but not necessary factors. On the other hand, effectiveness is very hard to gauge!
The conclusion is that organizing is likely or even clearly positive—but it’s evidently not required, if other factors are present, which is why I thought it was overstated.
I agree with this, and like to lean on what evidence we have rather than theory and speculation
There are many past events which increased the value of the future unintentionally, like free markets and most scientific advancements.
Previous examples of people and movements which intentionally planned to increase the value of the future mostly achieved it through concrete current change in laws and cultural norms. When MLK said “I have a dream”, he fought for change then and there to make that dream a reality. Efforts like these have had a huge effect. This list is just what comes to mind, in no particular order and far from extensive. Most of these required community organising and protest as at least part of the process to achieve the concrete change.
- Abolition of slavery
- Women’s suffrage
- Nuclear Treaties
- Universal declaration of human rights (which although breaking down a bit has been so successful that “human rights” are seen almost as an objective truth for many people)
- Banning warfare with poisonous gases
- Civil rights movement
- Access to free HIV treatment becoming a universal “right” through social movements and PEPFAR
- Animal welfare movement—specifically the cage free revolution
- Democratic transformation of nation states
- LGBTQ+ rights movements and legal changes
- Social welfare movements for the poorest part of the population in many rich countries
I think efforts to improve the value of the future through concrete current change right here right now are fantastic and EA can continue to focus on those where they are neglected and tractable, but I struggle to see a clear Theory of Change for other possible mechanisms due to, as you put it very well”The complexity of socio-technological and moral evolution”. Good things locked in now can be really hard to change in democratic countries. I would (perhaps slightly controversially) cite Obamacare as an example of something that was so beneficial to so many it became extremely hard to reverse.
I’m very open to other pathways for creating change that don’t involve a concrete change right here right now, but you’ll need to convince me.
This seems mostly correct, though I think the role of community organizing (versus elite consensus change) is strongly overstated.
Do you think “Most of these required community organising and protest as at least part of the process to achieve the concrete change.” is that strong a statement? There is a pretty strong correlation between protest/organising and these changes. Elite consense is clearly very important, but I think that the voice of the masses can move the elite to consensus so there’s some chicken and egg there. Also to mention a few cases here where I don’t think elite consensus was strong at the time of change and their hand’s were perhaps forced...
- Access to free HIV treatment (This I’m pretty sure of)
- Civil rights movement
- Women’s suffrage
I do find this a tricky issue to keep a scout mindset on here on the forum, as I find EAs in general are unusually against protest and organising compared to other communities I am a part of. My feeling is this is largely because the nature of many EAs is more to be into research, debate and policy rather than social roles like organising and protest.
What makes you think it is overstated? I think its a tricky counterfactual question with a lot of room for conjecture.…
Tangentially re: protest, I think things are slowly shifting, due to the work of folks like James Özden founding Social Change Lab to understand how social change movements can be more evidence-based and effective. For instance, James changed my mind on the effectiveness of radical protest tactics in What’s everyone got against throwing soup?, which drew upon this literature review to conclude that
I’d also signal-boost James’ article Protest Movements Could Be More Effective Than the Best Charities published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. You should always take charts like the one below claiming superlative cost-eff with a metric ton of salt, but I mostly trust the general quality of his analysis and think his bottomline holds up.
That said, James seems to be the only person banging this drum, so I suppose your observation still broadly holds true.
I think James’s did is really important and shows the potential good if a radical flank
Traditionally though movements and organizing was often around issues which has decent public support already and wasnt necessarily that radical. The civil rights movement and the HIV medicine campaigners directly moved the elites towards their goal, and didn’t just move the needle on public opinion for the better like the radical flank can
I agree that the examples you list are ones where organizing and protest played a large role, and I agree that it’s effectively impossible to know the counterfactual—but I was thinking of the other examples, several where there was no organizing and protest, but which happened anyways—which seems like clear evidence that they are contributory and helpful but not necessary factors. On the other hand, effectiveness is very hard to gauge!
The conclusion is that organizing is likely or even clearly positive—but it’s evidently not required, if other factors are present, which is why I thought it was overstated.
Yep I agree with that