I think the post was already acknowledging the difference in perspective and trying to make the case that the perspective that you are advocating for seems shortsighted from their perspective.
The key point here seems to be the consideration that is given to interconnectedness. Whereas âtraditionalâ EA assumes stability in the Earth System and focuses âonlyâ on marginal improvements ceteris paribus, the ecological perspective highlights the interconnectedness of âeverythingâ and the need for a systemic focus on sustaining the entire Earth system rather than simply assuming itâs continued functioning in the face of ongoing disruption and destruction.
I think the argument is sound and does show a pretty big blind spot in âtraditionalâ EA thinking. I think the post itself probably could have made the point in a way that is easier to digest for people with contrarian beliefs but the level of downvoting seems pretty harsh and ultimately self-defeating to me.
In terms of practical consequences, I would first of all expect more recognition of systemic perspectives in EA discourse and more openness to considering the value of ecosystems and earth systems in general. This seems worthwhile even just on instrumental grounds.
The post emphasizes systemic thinking but doesnât clarify how this would change cause prioritization in practice. The example takes as a given that we should make value judgments favoring ecosystems over human/âanimal welfare. Iâve seen various posts from people working on existential risk who try to put estimates on likelihood of systemic failures.
While measurement in complex systems is challenging, Iâd like to see more concrete proposals from systemic thinkers. What specific interventions do they suggest? How would they evaluate impact, even roughly?
I think this post falls into the classic âEA shouldâ trapâit criticizes current approaches but doesnât actually suggest concrete solutions or alternatives.
Iâm saying this because Iâd genuinely be interested in seeing more concrete analysis from this perspective but donât think this post is productive.
Reading your comments, I think we come from different perspectives when reading such a post.
I read the post as an attempt to highlight a blind spot in âorthodoxâ EA thinking, which simply tries to make a case for the need to revisit some deeply ingrained assumptions based on alternative viewpoints. This tends to make me curious about the alternative viewpoints offered and if I find them at least somewhat plausible and compelling I try to see what I can do with them based on their own assumptions. I do not necessarily see it as the job of the post to anticipate all the questions that a person coming from the âorthodoxâ perspective may come up with. Certainly, itâs nice if it is well written and can anticipate some objections but this forum is not a philosophical journal (far from it).
So, what I am concerned with in your reaction is that it gives me an impression that you may be applying the same standards for people who share your âorthodoxâ understanding that âonly sentient beings countâ and those who question the viability of this understanding. You seem to take the âorthodoxâ understanding as given and demand that the other person makes arguments that are convincing from this âorthodoxâ perspective. This can be very difficult if the other side questions very fundamental assumptions of your position. There is a huge gap between noticing inconsistencies and problems with an âorthodoxâ framework and being able to offer viable alternatives that make sense to people looking at this through the lens of the âorthodoxâ framework. A seminal reading to appreciate the nature of this situation would probably be Thomas Kuhn (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition.
The whole reason I commented in the first place is that I am sometimes disappointed by people down-voting critical posts that challenge âorthodoxyâ but in the next breath triumphantly declare how open-minded EA is and how curiosity and critique is at the heart of the movement. âEA is an open-ended questionâ, they say and go down-vote the post that questions some of their core assumptions (not saying this is you, but there must be some cases of this given what I have seen happen here in the forum). Isnât it in this communities best interest and stated self-understanding that it should be a welcoming place to people who are well meaning and able to articulate their questions or critiques in a coherent manner even if they go against prevailing orthodoxy? Isnât this where EA itself came from?
Moving out of the slight rant mode and trying to reply to your substantial question about practical differences. I think my previous comment and also this provide some initial directions for this. If your fundamental assumptions change, it does not necessarily make sense to keep everything else as is. In this way, itâs a starting point for the development of a new âparadigmâ and this can take time. For example, EA still has arguably a mostly modern understanding of âprogressâ, which may need to be revisited in a more systemic paradigm. There are some efforts ongoing in this direction, for example, under the label of âmetamodernismâ.
However, there are many more people active in this space. The âGreat Simplificationâ podcast by Nate Hagens has some interesting episodes with quite a few of them. Disclaimer: I am not naively endorsing all of the content on the podcast (e.g., I donât really listen to the âfranklyâ episodes) but I think it provides an interesting, useful, and often inspiring window on this emerging systemic perspective. If you are not too familiar with the planetary boundaries framework there is a recent episode with Johan RockstrĂśm that discusses it in broad strokes.
I think the post was already acknowledging the difference in perspective and trying to make the case that the perspective that you are advocating for seems shortsighted from their perspective.
The key point here seems to be the consideration that is given to interconnectedness. Whereas âtraditionalâ EA assumes stability in the Earth System and focuses âonlyâ on marginal improvements ceteris paribus, the ecological perspective highlights the interconnectedness of âeverythingâ and the need for a systemic focus on sustaining the entire Earth system rather than simply assuming itâs continued functioning in the face of ongoing disruption and destruction.
I think the argument is sound and does show a pretty big blind spot in âtraditionalâ EA thinking. I think the post itself probably could have made the point in a way that is easier to digest for people with contrarian beliefs but the level of downvoting seems pretty harsh and ultimately self-defeating to me.
In terms of practical consequences, I would first of all expect more recognition of systemic perspectives in EA discourse and more openness to considering the value of ecosystems and earth systems in general. This seems worthwhile even just on instrumental grounds.
The post emphasizes systemic thinking but doesnât clarify how this would change cause prioritization in practice. The example takes as a given that we should make value judgments favoring ecosystems over human/âanimal welfare. Iâve seen various posts from people working on existential risk who try to put estimates on likelihood of systemic failures.
While measurement in complex systems is challenging, Iâd like to see more concrete proposals from systemic thinkers. What specific interventions do they suggest? How would they evaluate impact, even roughly?
I think this post falls into the classic âEA shouldâ trapâit criticizes current approaches but doesnât actually suggest concrete solutions or alternatives.
Iâm saying this because Iâd genuinely be interested in seeing more concrete analysis from this perspective but donât think this post is productive.
Reading your comments, I think we come from different perspectives when reading such a post.
I read the post as an attempt to highlight a blind spot in âorthodoxâ EA thinking, which simply tries to make a case for the need to revisit some deeply ingrained assumptions based on alternative viewpoints. This tends to make me curious about the alternative viewpoints offered and if I find them at least somewhat plausible and compelling I try to see what I can do with them based on their own assumptions. I do not necessarily see it as the job of the post to anticipate all the questions that a person coming from the âorthodoxâ perspective may come up with. Certainly, itâs nice if it is well written and can anticipate some objections but this forum is not a philosophical journal (far from it).
So, what I am concerned with in your reaction is that it gives me an impression that you may be applying the same standards for people who share your âorthodoxâ understanding that âonly sentient beings countâ and those who question the viability of this understanding. You seem to take the âorthodoxâ understanding as given and demand that the other person makes arguments that are convincing from this âorthodoxâ perspective. This can be very difficult if the other side questions very fundamental assumptions of your position. There is a huge gap between noticing inconsistencies and problems with an âorthodoxâ framework and being able to offer viable alternatives that make sense to people looking at this through the lens of the âorthodoxâ framework. A seminal reading to appreciate the nature of this situation would probably be Thomas Kuhn (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition.
The whole reason I commented in the first place is that I am sometimes disappointed by people down-voting critical posts that challenge âorthodoxyâ but in the next breath triumphantly declare how open-minded EA is and how curiosity and critique is at the heart of the movement. âEA is an open-ended questionâ, they say and go down-vote the post that questions some of their core assumptions (not saying this is you, but there must be some cases of this given what I have seen happen here in the forum). Isnât it in this communities best interest and stated self-understanding that it should be a welcoming place to people who are well meaning and able to articulate their questions or critiques in a coherent manner even if they go against prevailing orthodoxy? Isnât this where EA itself came from?
Moving out of the slight rant mode and trying to reply to your substantial question about practical differences. I think my previous comment and also this provide some initial directions for this. If your fundamental assumptions change, it does not necessarily make sense to keep everything else as is. In this way, itâs a starting point for the development of a new âparadigmâ and this can take time. For example, EA still has arguably a mostly modern understanding of âprogressâ, which may need to be revisited in a more systemic paradigm. There are some efforts ongoing in this direction, for example, under the label of âmetamodernismâ.
I personally also find the work of Daniel Schmachtenberger and the Civilization Research Institute quite interesting. They have a new article on this very topic that may be an interesting read: https://ââconsilienceproject.org/ââdevelopment-in-progress/ââ.
However, there are many more people active in this space. The âGreat Simplificationâ podcast by Nate Hagens has some interesting episodes with quite a few of them. Disclaimer: I am not naively endorsing all of the content on the podcast (e.g., I donât really listen to the âfranklyâ episodes) but I think it provides an interesting, useful, and often inspiring window on this emerging systemic perspective. If you are not too familiar with the planetary boundaries framework there is a recent episode with Johan RockstrĂśm that discusses it in broad strokes.