I empathize with the desire for the request which is why I’m responding, but yeah, unsure the EA forum is the right place for the presidential election.
I wonder if one were to make an argument for a candidate strictly across causes which are more EA consensus/funded by Open Phil. X candidate is good for animal welfare, global health and development, and pandemic and AI catastrophic/existential risk. And here are the policies and here is the total analysis across these which differentially directs this many GiveDirectly rated dollars/QALYs.
But yeah, seems hard. Also open to just being wrong here.
I think that your argument is a fair one to make, but I think it’s easier to argue for than against, so I want to argue against to avoid an information cascade towards consensus.
I generally support the outside-view argument for ideological diversification, and if that diversification means anything it has to mean supporting things that wouldn’t “get there” on their own (especially as a small / exploratory fraction of donation portfolio, as OP indicates here).
EA need not be totalizing, and I think the world is better-off if EAs discuss how to bring a mindset towards effectiveness to other endeavors in their lives.
I generally think that we’ve swung too far towards consensus and OpenPhil deference as a community (though there’s been some swing back), and am actively happier to see things that aren’t obviously bunk but swing us towards a more pluralistic and diverse set of approaches.
I think in particular that EA donors have historically under-considered opportunities in politics, and am happy to see increased engagement in considering opportunities there (even if I might disagree with the choice of a particular political race as the most effective, like I might disagree with the choice of an approach within a cause area).
I wonder if one were to make an argument for a candidate strictly across causes which are more EA consensus/funded by Open Phil. X candidate is good for animal welfare, global health and development, and pandemic and AI catastrophic/existential risk.
I empathize with the desire for the request which is why I’m responding, but yeah, unsure the EA forum is the right place for the presidential election.
I wonder if one were to make an argument for a candidate strictly across causes which are more EA consensus/funded by Open Phil. X candidate is good for animal welfare, global health and development, and pandemic and AI catastrophic/existential risk. And here are the policies and here is the total analysis across these which differentially directs this many GiveDirectly rated dollars/QALYs.
But yeah, seems hard. Also open to just being wrong here.
I think that your argument is a fair one to make, but I think it’s easier to argue for than against, so I want to argue against to avoid an information cascade towards consensus.
I generally support the outside-view argument for ideological diversification, and if that diversification means anything it has to mean supporting things that wouldn’t “get there” on their own (especially as a small / exploratory fraction of donation portfolio, as OP indicates here).
EA need not be totalizing, and I think the world is better-off if EAs discuss how to bring a mindset towards effectiveness to other endeavors in their lives.
I generally think that we’ve swung too far towards consensus and OpenPhil deference as a community (though there’s been some swing back), and am actively happier to see things that aren’t obviously bunk but swing us towards a more pluralistic and diverse set of approaches.
I think in particular that EA donors have historically under-considered opportunities in politics, and am happy to see increased engagement in considering opportunities there (even if I might disagree with the choice of a particular political race as the most effective, like I might disagree with the choice of an approach within a cause area).
Relevant to x-risks, quoting Zvi:
I think this is a good instance of focusing through cause areas and one I had in mind