On your last point, if you believe that the EV from a “effective neartermism → effective longtermism” career change is greater than a “somewhat harmful career → effective neartermism” career change, then the downside of using a “somewhat harmful career → effective longtermism” example is that people might think the “stopped doing harm” part is more important than the “focused on longtermism” part.
More generally, I think your “arguments for the status quo” seem right to me! I think it’s great that you’re thinking clearly about the considerations on both sides, and my guess is that you and I would just weight these considerations differently.
Thanks Isaac for the encouragement on the validity of the “arguments for the staus quo”. I’m not really sure how I weight the considerations to be honest, I’m more raising the questions for discussion.
Yes that’s a fair point about the story at the end. I hadn’t consider the “stopped doing harm” part might make my example confusiton. Maybe then I would prefer a “went from being a doctor” to “focused on longtermism”, because otherwise it feels like a bit of a kick in the teeth to a decent chunk of the EA community who have decided that global health is.a great thing to devote your life to ;).
Makes sense. To be clear, I think global health is very important, and I think it’s a great thing to devote one’s life to! I don’t think it should be underestimated how big a difference you can make improving the world now, and I admire people who focus on making that happen. It just happens that I’m concerned the future might be even higher priority thing that many people could be in a good position to address.
On your last point, if you believe that the EV from a “effective neartermism → effective longtermism” career change is greater than a “somewhat harmful career → effective neartermism” career change, then the downside of using a “somewhat harmful career → effective longtermism” example is that people might think the “stopped doing harm” part is more important than the “focused on longtermism” part.
More generally, I think your “arguments for the status quo” seem right to me! I think it’s great that you’re thinking clearly about the considerations on both sides, and my guess is that you and I would just weight these considerations differently.
Thanks Isaac for the encouragement on the validity of the “arguments for the staus quo”. I’m not really sure how I weight the considerations to be honest, I’m more raising the questions for discussion.
Yes that’s a fair point about the story at the end. I hadn’t consider the “stopped doing harm” part might make my example confusiton. Maybe then I would prefer a “went from being a doctor” to “focused on longtermism”, because otherwise it feels like a bit of a kick in the teeth to a decent chunk of the EA community who have decided that global health is.a great thing to devote your life to ;).
Makes sense. To be clear, I think global health is very important, and I think it’s a great thing to devote one’s life to! I don’t think it should be underestimated how big a difference you can make improving the world now, and I admire people who focus on making that happen. It just happens that I’m concerned the future might be even higher priority thing that many people could be in a good position to address.