Thanks for your hard work in writing this. I was impressed by the depth of thought and how well it was linked to other articles.
1.
I agree climate change is not an x-risk, and though EA shouldn’t focus on it, we should probably discuss it a bit more and bring our critical thinking to help solve the problem more efficiently. Not discussing it seems like at best an oversight, and at worst, harmful.
This seems like a wise comment. We should all be open to criticism, particularly if we are disagreeing or taking a nuanced view on something the majority of people think is really important or that they expect us to care about.
2. Overall, it seems reasonable to me that EA resources might be ill spent in working on climate change, since there is already so much money and so many people going to work there. Several of my non-EA friends are deciding to fight climate change of their own accord. I think it would be better if they used an EA methodology and it would be better if the people at the top of anti-climate change orgs used this methodology but it seems much of what you speak of is answered by the fact that additional EA members in that community may not (or may) do much additional good compared to their intervention elsewhere. I don’t know how to judge that.
Perhaps in regard to this, it would be better if rather than getting jobs in these spheres EA people were encouraged to vote wisely, donate wisely, engage with their communities, be informed about climate change. Maybe this is what you had in mind anyway.
I think if EA folks got involved in trying to change the climate change methodology it could go a long way towards minimizing the amount of wasted effort that other people are putting into the climate problem.
Sure, it’s a question of maximising effect. I don’t know what is best. 80k say it’s not the most effective. I suppose you’d have to ask them how that explanation works.
Certainly it’s a better thing to do that working building bombs, but as to if it’s as good as AI policy, 80k says no.
Thanks for your hard work in writing this. I was impressed by the depth of thought and how well it was linked to other articles.
1.
This seems like a wise comment. We should all be open to criticism, particularly if we are disagreeing or taking a nuanced view on something the majority of people think is really important or that they expect us to care about.
2. Overall, it seems reasonable to me that EA resources might be ill spent in working on climate change, since there is already so much money and so many people going to work there. Several of my non-EA friends are deciding to fight climate change of their own accord. I think it would be better if they used an EA methodology and it would be better if the people at the top of anti-climate change orgs used this methodology but it seems much of what you speak of is answered by the fact that additional EA members in that community may not (or may) do much additional good compared to their intervention elsewhere. I don’t know how to judge that.
Perhaps in regard to this, it would be better if rather than getting jobs in these spheres EA people were encouraged to vote wisely, donate wisely, engage with their communities, be informed about climate change. Maybe this is what you had in mind anyway.
I think if EA folks got involved in trying to change the climate change methodology it could go a long way towards minimizing the amount of wasted effort that other people are putting into the climate problem.
Hey thanks for replying,
Sure, it’s a question of maximising effect. I don’t know what is best. 80k say it’s not the most effective. I suppose you’d have to ask them how that explanation works.
Certainly it’s a better thing to do that working building bombs, but as to if it’s as good as AI policy, 80k says no.
What do you think?